Worst of Social Justice

[Art Vandelay]

Is he really for real?

Probably? He's the producer for Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs Women in Video Games series. If he's a troll, he's under very deep cover.

He's also Anita Sarkeesian's boyfriend. So yeah, it's probably safe to assume that he is indeed for real.

[The_Queen]

Here we see McIntosh defending extremists who terrorize people because of an opinion.

I fail to see the issue at all. Could we get a bit more context?

Cause, at the moment, it's just a statement. Heck, not even a complete sentence of a statement. But, without context as to why he said it, we don't really know if he is defending extremists.

I mean, if the statement is in response to "do you think you're better than Charlie Hebdo," then it is a giant non-issue. If it is in response to something like "Did Charlie Hebdo deserve what it got," then it looks a little bad.

ETA: Sarkeesian's boyfriend... this just strengthens my believe that WSJ is a pretext to ridicule those against gamergate,.

[niam2023]

Here we see McIntosh defending extremists who terrorize people because of an opinion.

I fail to see the issue at all. Could we get a bit more context?

Cause, at the moment, it's just a statement. Heck, not even a complete sentence of a statement. But, without context as to why he said it, we don't really know if he is defending extremists.

I mean, if the statement is in response to "do you think you're better than Charlie Hebdo," then it is a giant non-issue. If it is in response to something like "Did Charlie Hebdo deserve what it got," then it looks a little bad.

ETA: Sarkeesian's boyfriend... this just strengthens my believe that WSJ is a pretext to ridicule those against gamergate,.

Personally it doesn't matter to me if it is. If people want to use WSJ as a pretext to ridicule, then I say let them. I am beyond caring about that internet hooplah now. What matters to me is that it is used even some of the time to talk about Social Justice Warrior nitwits.

The fact of the matter is that Jonathan is essentially saying that Charlie Hebdo deserved what they got for mocking Muslims, who he defines as most marginalized and vulnerable. To me and the law, it doesn't matter how marginalized and vulnerable you are. Nobody gets to control what people say, who says it, and what they use their free speech for.

[ironbite]

Is he really?  Cause it doesn't seem that way to me.  It seems to me he's saying that he uses his free speech in  a way that doesn't mock and deride some of the most defenseless parts of French society.  Or are you that unaware of how France treats Muslims?

Ironbite-because it ain't pretty.

[Second Coming of Madman]

Here we see McIntosh defending extremists who terrorize people because of an opinion.

I fail to see the issue at all. Could we get a bit more context?

Cause, at the moment, it's just a statement. Heck, not even a complete sentence of a statement. But, without context as to why he said it, we don't really know if he is defending extremists.

I mean, if the statement is in response to "do you think you're better than Charlie Hebdo," then it is a giant non-issue. If it is in response to something like "Did Charlie Hebdo deserve what it got," then it looks a little bad.

ETA: Sarkeesian's boyfriend... this just strengthens my believe that WSJ is a pretext to ridicule those against gamergate,.

So, in essence:

We're supposed to shut up, because this thread isn't a hit piece.

God, and I thought WMDKitty was the perfect real-life straw man.

[The_Queen]

Niam, I just have one question. Can you read?

Because right now, I'm scouring this image, and I don't see where he says they deserved a mass shooting. All I see is him saying that Charlie Hebdo "uses its free speech to mock and deride the most marginalized and vulnerable in society." That is the only factual assertion he makes in this image. And, at the very least, the fact that someone on here defending Hebdo says it prints some things that are "tasteless" strongly implies that there is some gray area from which McIntosh's factual assertion may be true.

Without knowing what the "because" was in reference too, we do not know if he is defending what happened to Charlie Hebdo.

For example, if the KKK is firebombed and someone asks me "Do you think the KKK are a group of good people?" and I respond with "no, because it uses its free speech to harass people." That is a non-issue entirely and I speak only to character of the group and not the terrorist act. If the question is "do you think the KKK deserved what it got?" and I say, "yes, because it uses its free speech to harass people," then I am defending the firebombing. Simple, no? This is why context matters, and I ask what the because relates to.

And don't tell me about law. I know the law a lot better than you do, son.

[I am lizard]

What's so awful about the third?

Well, for one thing, it's factually wrong. I've seen quite a few women as side characters who weren't conventionally attractive, and if we're talking protagonists, I don't think I've ever seen an ugly or heavy protagonist where it wasn't played up as a massive joke against him.

Another issue with that statement comes when you consider video game protagonists that aren't human (or even humanoid).  Ms. Pac-Man, for example.

And then there's games like Mass Effect that let you choose what your character looks like.

Well, either way, it's a bit jarring to see a mildly wrong statement alongside super-wrong ones.

[Art Vandelay]

ETA: Sarkeesian's boyfriend... this just strengthens my believe that WSJ is a pretext to ridicule those against gamergate,.

What exactly does that have to do with fuckwitgate? What, do they have a monopoly on criticising Sarkeesian, now?

[niam2023]

Niam, I just have one question. Can you read?

Because right now, I'm scouring this image, and I don't see where he says they deserved a mass shooting. All I see is him saying that Charlie Hebdo "uses its free speech to mock and deride the most marginalized and vulnerable in society." That is the only factual assertion he makes in this image. And, at the very least, the fact that someone on here defending Hebdo says it prints some things that are "tasteless" strongly implies that there is some gray area from which McIntosh's factual assertion may be true.

Without knowing what the "because" was in reference too, we do not know if he is defending what happened to Charlie Hebdo.

For example, if the KKK is firebombed and someone asks me "Do you think the KKK are a group of good people?" and I respond with "no, because it uses its free speech to harass people." That is a non-issue entirely and I speak only to character of the group and not the terrorist act. If the question is "do you think the KKK deserved what it got?" and I say, "yes, because it uses its free speech to harass people," then I am defending the firebombing. Simple, no? This is why context matters, and I ask what the because relates to.

And don't tell me about law. I know the law a lot better than you do, son.

I simply saw the implication that he was saying something of the kind.

I'll get to looking at what context the statement had.

And even if Hebdo said some tasteless things, no matter how disenfranchised the people are, they have no right to go on a massacre.

[ironbite]

Tasteless is putting it mildly of course.

[Second Coming of Madman]

Here's one for Chewy. Seems PZ is up to his old routine.

(click to show/hide)

*Cough* Ogvorbis, the admitted serial child rapist who everybody on PZland loves and adores / spends their time apologizing for.*Cough*

But of course to PZ, everybody on the slymepit must be one of those sick twisted perverted hermasexuals rapists since they make him feel bad and criticize PZ's beliefs.

In reality, it's nothing of the sort. They can be slightly tasteless, but the Slymepit means mostly well. Anyway, away from dark shit like this and to amusing shit like this :

Now, Uncle Madman loves you all very much, kiddos. Now eat your unbaked tasteless hard tack like MEN!!

http://freeculture.org/about/license/

Behold the SJW equivalent of creative commons. Amusingly, either half of the site is broken or has missing images.

We recognize that private ownership over media, ideas, and technology is rooted in European conceptions of property and the history of colonialism from which they formed. These systems of privatization and monopolization, namely copyright and patent law, enforce the systems of punishment and reward which benefit a privileged minority at the cost of others’ creative expression, political discourse, and cultural survival. The private and public institutions, legal frameworks, and social values which uphold these systems are inseparable from broader forms of oppression. Indigenous people, people of color, queer people, trans people, and women are particularly exploited for their creative and cultural resources while hardly receiving any of the personal gains or legal protections for their work.

TLDR: Copyright is of the Great Satan.

[I am lizard]

Madman, I have no clue what you just said.

[The_Queen]

Niam, I just have one question. Can you read?

Because right now, I'm scouring this image, and I don't see where he says they deserved a mass shooting. All I see is him saying that Charlie Hebdo "uses its free speech to mock and deride the most marginalized and vulnerable in society." That is the only factual assertion he makes in this image. And, at the very least, the fact that someone on here defending Hebdo says it prints some things that are "tasteless" strongly implies that there is some gray area from which McIntosh's factual assertion may be true.

Without knowing what the "because" was in reference too, we do not know if he is defending what happened to Charlie Hebdo.

For example, if the KKK is firebombed and someone asks me "Do you think the KKK are a group of good people?" and I respond with "no, because it uses its free speech to harass people." That is a non-issue entirely and I speak only to character of the group and not the terrorist act. If the question is "do you think the KKK deserved what it got?" and I say, "yes, because it uses its free speech to harass people," then I am defending the firebombing. Simple, no? This is why context matters, and I ask what the because relates to.

And don't tell me about law. I know the law a lot better than you do, son.

I simply saw the implication that he was saying something of the kind.

I'll get to looking at what context the statement had.

I looked it up, there is no context. All that there is is the four corners of that image. All he is saying is that "I am not Charlie Hebdo BECAUSE they use their free speech [offensively]." A direct mention to Charlie Hebdo's character and no mention at all to the massacre. It is a quite the intellectual dishonesty to say he supports this massacre because he doesn't think the victim is a perfect, squeaky-clean organization.

And even if Hebdo said some tasteless things, no matter how disenfranchised the people are, they have no right to go on a massacre.

Since you want to say you know a bit about law, I would suggest you look up the rules of criminal procedure and the rules of evidence. If you were to do that, you'd learn rather quickly we look at each person's individual bad acts in isolation to speak to their moral culpability. Therefore, Hebdo can be a tasteless and offensive magazine and those that caused the massacre can be wrong in their actions. No one is saying the culpability for the two separate incidences are one-to-one, only that Charlie Hebdo is wrong for publicizing offensive material.

[Ironchew]

Every tear a man has shed over a woman can be traced back to how he was personally affected by the loss of that woman’s utility—the woman herself is a distant second at best.

Not all men...!

[Second Coming of Madman]

*Shits bricks.*

Seriously, I can't tell which is more terrifying.